Personal Attack Ads - Half-Truths, Lies and Politicians – Nothing New – Neither is Political Party Infighting Analysis

An interesting video shown below, entitled “Attack Ads – Circ 1800”, is a well-done short on the reality of American Politics – otherwise known as name-calling. In goes towards the character of the American Politician desperately trying to hold or gain power by swaying the electorate, casting aspersions on the competition. The difference, however, between 1800 and 2010 is the delivery of the “advertising” against an adversary. The pamphlets employed and reports of the same, took weeks, to wend their way to the voting populace, while today’s ads take seconds to reach an audience be it television or radio.

In the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Race, both Deval Patrick and PACS supporting Patrick have released ads charging Republican Charlie Baker with a host of abuses; the Baker Team (and subsequent PAC’s) has, in turn, released counter ads. The difference today – sound bites that allow those to take a portion of audio or video and attach that to an accusation.

How effective are attack ads, especially in Massachustts? Not very, when one considers the January 19th special election between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown. Coakley, who decided late in the election that her opponent might actually have some traction, ran one negative ad after the other, eventually disenfranchising the electorate, and wining the day for Brown (who did not run any personal attack ads, rather focused on what he would do if elected).

It is the ability of the American Public to see only so many attack ads, even if they are a member of that political party, before they become disenfranchised, and depressed; to the point of staying home on Election Day. It appears that overall, the more negative an advertisement becomes and the more personal, the general public starts to take a hard look at the opposition, as those types of ads smack of desperation.

Case in point, the attack ads on Christine O’Donnell who is running for the Delaware Senate became so vicious, that polls are now showing her closing in on her Democrat opponent. Although attack ads are nothing new, the delivery and sheer volume of messages is definitely increased, causing what one might term “voter angst” or perhaps more to the point “voter backlash”.

Incidentally, as this particular election of 2010 has Democrats fighting one another, and or attempting to distance themselves from certain high profile leaders, in an attempt to save their “jobs”, and ensure that the people re-hire them for yet another term, has caused much speculation that there is a division in the ranks of the Democrats. Not unlike political ads, political infighting is not a new phenomenon. From Google: a link here gives the reader insight into the political maneuverings and infighting of the Democrats in the May 24, 1899 edition of the newspaper, the Robinson Constitution. It is an interesting read from the perspective of then union organizers, who felt that Jefferson was getting a bad rap, and further speaks to the ability of the unions to organize and get out the vote.

It should be noted, that today, speaking of a Senator or Congressional Representative, or Governors actual voting record, is seen by that members political party as an “attack” – unfortunately, those in 2010 who voted for unpopular programs, such as the Health Care Reform Package, Stimulus, and Cap and Trade, should, instead of crying foul, man (or woman)up to the fact that they did indeed support those bills, voted them through against the wishes of their constituents and then stand by them.

Instead, they release ads that are not new, in fact, they are recycled every time the Democrats find themselves in the hot seat – making ridiculous claims that Republicans will take away some poor grandmothers (or grandfathers) social security. The problem with this claim, this year, is that seniors know they have had no increases or cost of living raises for the past two years, while the Congress was controlled by, the Democrats. When one has only oneself to blame, one is somewhat behind the proverbial eight ball – so, stretching the truth, and calling names, becomes the norm - the public however, understands transparency. With that said, crying wolf one time too many, may be setting up those who are going to be going out on the campaign trail for the next round (2012), and therefore, it may behoove all politicians and those who want to server our nation, to speak about what they might do, if elected, in contrast to their opponent, without going for the juggler. That would be refreshing – perhaps Senator Scott Brown’s ads should be studied – they were not the sole reason he was elected, rather played a small part, but it was the decency in his advertising that factored into the equation.

Fortuntaly, so far (there is still time however), not one political ad released in 2010 charges that should an opponnet be elected, one's house will be burnt to the ground.